All physics textbooks should include this warning label:
“This textbook contains material on Gravity. Universal Gravity is a theory, Not a fact, regarding the natural law of attraction. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered.”
The Universal Theory of Gravity is often taught in schools as a “fact,” when in fact it is not even a good theory.
First of all, no one has measured gravity for every atom and every star. It is simply a religious belief that it is “universal.” Secondly, school textbooks routinely make false statements. For example, “the moon goes around the earth.” If the theory of gravity were true, it would show that the sun's gravitational force on the moon is much stronger than the earth's gravitational force on the moon, so the moon would go around the sun. Anybody can look up at night and see the obvious gaps in gravity theory.
The existence of tides is often taken as a proof of gravity, but this is logically flawed. Because if the moon's “gravity” were responsible for a bulge underneath it, then how can anyone explain a high tide on the opposite side of the earth at the same time? Anyone can observe that there are 2 -- not 1 -- high tides every day. It is far more likely that tides were given us by an Intelligent Creator long ago and they have been with us ever since. In any case, two high tides falsifies gravity.
[...... Big snip........]
It is not even clear why we need a theory of gravity -- there is not a single mention in the Bible, and the patriotic founding fathers never referred to it.
Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly Socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is Communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.
Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.
KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "Theory of Gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.
Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.
Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."
Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.
According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how Angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.
The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision.".....
There are no absolue truths. A theory is fact until it is proven to be erronous.
mbig;1-058648685 said:This post above more than bordering on incoherent.
mbig;1-058648685 said:But apparently saying that Evolution isn't even a Theory (a claim surpassing most whacked creationists) because there's no evidence/observable phenomena to support it. (Gee and in one sentence!)
Which is, of course, completely False.
mbig;1-058648685 said:It was Darwin's original and Live observations/ "phenomena" that kicked off Evolution.
mbig;1-058648685 said:Since confirmed by the "phenomena" of Millions of Fossils ('coincidentally' in the right layers worldwide) and Other sciences like Isotopic Dating and DNA regression analysis.
Could you explain to us (presumably Catz Part Deux, Dezaad, Dogger807, iangb, marduc, molten_dragon, samsmart, spud_meister, Tashah) what you consider the 'hypothesis of evolution' to be?
A logical one of course.Sure, what kind of any other argument one can expect from scientists?
It is another proof that scientists cannot comprehend a simple sentence.
Despite your Hostility to Scientists, I think they, or even ONE of their kwazy kweationist opponents, whose IQ might even be 3 digits, would have noticed this contradiction ...IF it existed.I said :
Evolution is not a theory because of the only one reason. Not because of God, Bible, logic, evidence, but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.
What could be unclear? What should I clarify. Let me try one more time: Evolution is not a theory COLOR="Red"]NOT[/COLOR] because of[/COOR] presence or lack or abundance or shortage of [COLR="red"]evidence to support it, but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.
So regardless of the SEMANTIC BS of what you want to call Fossils (or Isotopic Dating and DNA regression analysis you conspicuously left out), You have made no refutation of those phenomena/Evidences of Evolution.I guess scientists have real problems with understanding the word phenomena which is central in the text of laws of gravity and motion; instead they put it in apprentices and use it in some wild broken and incoherent English.
What is the "phenomena" of Millions of Fossils?
Not to copy-past or anything, but...ut generally evolution sums in appearance of new species out of the preexisting species and increase of the number of existing species; or in the dubious language of scientists - Evolution is the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations.After a population splits into smaller groups, these groups evolve independently and eventually diversify into new species ( where the new species are genetically isolated from the previous ones); or in the language of Newton’s laws – phenomena of new species popping around us in increasing amounts.
A logical one of course.
They put us on the moon, Conjured up TV's and computers, waterproof clothes, and Cured Polio/etc with their 'nonsense'.
I've never seen someone who was not only a God-ist, but was Hostile to scientists in general.
Remarkable Hang up!
Confirmed by:
Quote:
It is another proof that scientists cannot comprehend a simple sentence. .
:^)Despite your Hostility to Scientists, I think they, or even ONE of their kwazy kweationist opponents, whose IQ might even be 3 digits, would have noticed this contradiction ...IF it existed. .
Oooooph! I'd like a Nickel for every Religionist who says 'Evolution is merely a theory'.
etc etcNo more far fatched than "ID" or other fertilizer regularly posted here by God-ists. .
So regardless of the SEMANTIC BS of what you want to call Fossils (or Isotopic Dating and DNA regression analysis you conspicuously left out), You have made no refutation of those phenomena/Evidences of Evolution. .
IOW, you can't refute the weight/logic of the aforementioned in any way, except to disagree semantically with what you wish to call them.
2 and 2 is STILL 4 even if you don't want to call them 'Numbers'. .
I've never seen posts like yours. And in Raging Red too!Now scientists call this: Originally Posted by mbig;1-058648685
''This post above more than bordering on incoherent.''
logic.
justone said:
Now it is my hostility:
justone said:
Sure, What kind of any other argument one can Expect from Scientists?
It Would seem that way wouldn't it!justone said:It is another Proof that Scientists Cannot Comprehend a Simple Sentence.
.... Evolution is not a theory NOT because of presence or lack or abundance or shortage of evidence to support it[/Childish COLOR], but because of the text of universal laws of gravity and motion directly stating that evolution is not a theory.
The quoted sections above are the wildest few rambles I've ever seen posted in this section. (most mercifully "..."ed out by me) And with the Super-naturalists we have posting here, that's going some........
&*^*(&*(
............
..... only because of the text of laws of gravity, because of the foundation of the proof of laws of mutual attraction and motion of bodies, because of the statement without which no laws of gravity could be possibly drawn and formulated.
I'm scared now that I'm going to fall off the earth and drift aimlessly into space!:shock:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?